Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that events are sorted by impact score descending, that the tool is free with no API key, and that it returns structured data. While it doesn't cover rate limits or data freshness, the disclosed behaviors are relevant and helpful for an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise—two sentences plus an example—with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes value: what it returns, how to use it, sorting behavior, cost/auth status, and a concrete example. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (two optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete. It covers the data returned, sorting order, filtering logic, and authentication requirements. An agent has all the information needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that min_impact defaults to 0 (all events), recommending 7+ for high-impact only, and explaining the region filter implicitly through the list of regions in the schema. The example ties both parameters together, adding practical value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get structured geopolitical and market events with impact scores' and enumerates the fields returned (headline, impact_score, affected sectors, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_impact or get_risk_index by focusing on events with impact scores, and the example further clarifies its behavior.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to detect market-moving events and filter by minimum impact or region.' It also gives an example (min_impact=7) that illustrates how to apply filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for different scenarios, so it loses a point.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.